User talk:Nairebis

Welcome!

Hello, Nairebis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Zoz (t) 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:rescue party

That was a friendly fire casualty :-). Thanks.--Legionarius (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was probably the case. :) I'm kind of glad you wacked that link. I've let it sit there because it's not really a commercial link, and it was somewhat an analysis of the story, but really it wasn't a very high quality, academic analysis. Nairebis (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor left links to his blog all over ACC articles. Check my history, you will see...--Legionarius (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that article

Hi there. While I agree that the article needs merge/cleanup, what you did there was a wholesale revert to that banned editor's revision. Please, by all means, figure out the good from the bad and improve the article, but do not just simply re-instate a banned editor's changes. You have no idea as to the rationale behind their edits nor of the likely implications off-wiki - Alison ^❤ 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go through the edits and figure out which edits were good and bad? For example, what do you think their rationale was for making the caption in the image clearer by stating that Brittany is kissing Abby on the cheek instead of just saying who is on the left and who's on the right, which could be confusing unless you say from which directing you're facing? What implications could there possibly be "off-wiki" for making such an edit? For An Angel (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed all of the edits, and added back all the ones that were appropriate. Since I didn't see any that were inappropriate, I added them all back in (and added one other automatic edit). Let me be clear -- *I* added the information back in. It's is my edit, not some other editor's. I don't know or care where the edits came from -- and I shouldn't have to care. If I have to care where good information comes from, then something is seriously wrong with something behind the scenes at Wikipedia.

Please specify *exactly* which information you don't think is appropriate for the article, and I'll consider doing some further editing. Otherwise, I will improve the article by putting the information back in. Please do not undo my (and I emphasize MY) edits again without a good reason.

And can I be honest? I grow weary of this cliquish, overly dramatic "no idea as to the rationale behind their edits nor of the likely implications off-wiki". If you want to make a case, then point me to the public discussion where I can make an informed judgment. If there is no public discussion, then there is no policy. If it's something in real life, then it should be handled in real life.

As I said before, I'm sure there's some good reason for all this. But this secretive "just take my word for it" stuff just doesn't impress me and damages the reputation of Wikipedia.Nairebis (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since much of this stuff actually involves the privacy of other people, including off-wiki, then yes, it is a "take my word for it" situation, and I can't say more than that much as I hate leaving it like that. Still, if you wish to claim those edits as yours and are willing to stand over them regardless, then that's fine by me. The banned editor has already ended up in plenty of RL trouble as a result of editing Wikipedia and is actually still doing so (reading this, Mr. Morrow?). All I can do is try to limit his hurting of others - Alison ^❤ 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonably conceivable way that Nairebis's edit that you reverted could hurt anyone. Are you saying now then that we are allowed to revert your last edit to that article as long as the person who does it is willing to "stand over them" (whatever that means)? For An Angel (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no reasonably conceivable way that Nairebis's edit that you reverted could hurt anyone" - you don't know that. Seriously. And yes, pretty much - Alison ^❤ 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Adams

What country is she from? Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The United States. Nairebis (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Barbara Newhall Follett

Thanks; I did not know that, about the name she used as a writer. What's your source - I am looking for another source for the article - I think it'd be an interesting DYK, but all I have is Collins's article and the NPR stuff that is closely related to it. A DYK would need at least another source, I think. A birth date would be nice too. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh, just the Columbia page, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you actually beat me to setting up a page for her, I'd been planning to ever since reading the article you linked. I suspect we'd been thinking along the same lines. :) I have a copy of her biography called, "Barbara, the Unconscious Autobiography of a Child Genius," which has a reference to her birthday as March, 1914. Unfortunately, I can't find a reference to the exact date, except for a date that she had a birthday party (which may or may not be on the day). I'll be adding the month and day at some point. Her age at disappearance is wrong as well, she was 25, though her disappearance bulletin lists it as 26, which was her age at the time of the bulletin. I suspect Collin's article gets her age wrong in a lot of the article because he worked backward on wrong assumptions.

Anyway, I will probably be adding new info here and there. I'm still reading the biography. :)

Makes a more interesting DYK than most DYK's, in my mind, and I added you as co-author on the nom. Thanks for the fixes and additions. Read the araticle talk page for an interesting factoid. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Barbara Newhall Follett

On 8 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Newhall Follett, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Barbara Newhall Follett, who by age fourteen had published two novels to critical acclaim, left her apartment the night of December 7, 1939, at age twenty-five, and was never seen again? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nairebis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nairebis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]